Peter Land Jennings

In this paper we examine how ethical values contribute to national economic prosperity. We extend the concept of an ethical wealth of nations first introduced by Donaldson in which he proposed four categories of ethical values-fairer distribution of goods, better government, ingrained social cooperation, and inculcation of economic duties-that can drive economic performance, but only if citizens ascribe "intrinsic value" to them independent of their economic interests. Our analysis draws on institutional economics and sociology research to show that if ethical values are to drive economic performance, they must also be supported by the institutional fabric of the nation. We embed an expanded set of ethical values in a set of democratic, free market and civil society institutions spanning three sectors of society-political, economic and cultural respectively. We conclude by discussing the implications of our institutional framework for moral education.

The role of the self in moral functioning has gained considerable theoretical and empirical attention over the last 25years. A general consensus has emerged that the self plays a vital role in individuals' moral agency. This surge of research produced a proliferation of constructs related to the moral self, each grounded in diverse theoretical perspectives. Although this work has advanced our understanding of moral thought and behavior, there has also been a lack of clarity as to the nature and functioning of the moral self. We review and synthesize empirical research related to the moral self and provide an integrative framework to increase conceptual coherence among the various relevant constructs. We then discuss emerging opportunities and future directions for research on the moral self as well as implications for behavioral ethics in organizational contexts. Copyright (c) 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The authors develop and test the construct of duty orientation that we propose is valuable to advancing knowledge about ethical behavior in organizations. Duty orientation represents an individual's volitional orientation to loyally serve and faithfully support other members of the group, to strive and sacrifice to accomplish the tasks and missions of the group, and to honor its codes and principles. They test the construct validity and predictive validity of a measure of duty orientation across five studies and six samples. Consistent with the conceptualization of duty orientation as a malleable construct, they found in separate field studies that duty orientation mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and ethical and unethical behaviors, and between transformational leadership and ethical behavior. In predicting ethical and unethical behavior, duty orientation demonstrated incremental predictive validity beyond the effects of affective organizational commitment, organizational identification, experienced job responsibility, collective self-construal, and organizational values congruence.

Complex contexts and environments require leaders to be highly adaptive and to adjust their behavioral responses to meet diverse role demands. Such adaptability may be contingent upon leaders having requisite complexity to facilitate effectiveness across a range of roles. However, there exists little empirical understanding of the etiology or basis of leader complexity. To this end, we conceptualized a model of leader self-complexity that is inclusive of both the mind (the complexity of leaders' self-concepts) and the brain (the neuroscientific basis for complex leadership). We derived psychometric and neurologically based measures, the latter based on quantitative electroencephalogram (qEEG) profiles of leader self-complexity, and tested their separate effects on the adaptive decision-making of 103 military leaders. Results demonstrated that both measures accounted for unique variance in external ratings of adaptive decision-making. We discuss how these findings provide a deeper understanding of the latent and dynamic mechanisms that underpin leaders' self-complexity and their adaptability.

This paper examines the relation of individual perceptual, conscious, and self-regulatory processes to the generation of requisite complexity in formal and informal leaders. Requisite complexity is a complex adaptive systems concept that pertains to the ability of a system to adjust to the requirements of a changing environment by achieving equivalent levels of complexity. We maintain that requisite complexity has both static and dynamic aspects that involve four domains (general, social, self, and affective complexity), with each being more or less important for leaders depending upon the task requirements they face. Dynamic complexity draws on these static components and also creates new aspects of complexity through the interaction of mental processes. The implications of these issues for understanding leader adaptation and development are also discussed.

A fundamental tension in military ethics is not just how to prevent unethical behavior, but also how to inspire supererogatory conduct "above and beyond the call of duty." In this article, we provide a conceptual analysis and integrative framework for understanding the dynamics of military ethics based on two contrasting but complementary moralities-moralities of obligation and aspiration; and two types of moral motivation-rule-following and identity-conferring. We then provide analysis of the exemplary leadership required to inform and inspire military members to realize the aspirations embedded in an exemplary military ethic.

The U.S. Army has focused on developing leader competencies in order to promote adaptability for asymmetric warfare. Expanding leader adaptive capacity, however, requires integrating competencies with deeper knowledge structures and leader identity. We conduct a three-stage exploratory study using semistructured interviews and three separate samples of experienced combat leaders to assess the organization of tactical leader functional roles. We identify the breadth of roles, tasks, skills, and attributes representative of expert tactical military leaders. We hope to take a first step in circumscribing the requisite cognitive and behavioral complexity required of tactical leaders and thereby provide a referent structure for future research on what constitutes requisite complexity for tactical military leaders.